posted
Now, being the argument-disdaining, puppy -loving pacifist that I am, I am loathe to even look in the flameboard, especially since there hasn't been anything interesting, new, or civil since 1975.
However, this one got me a-thinkin', which is a dastardly offence, as one must take into consideration that I concieved of a fully-working miniature Man Train, and the art of wearing undergarments outside of regular garments with little or no people noticing, while a-thinkin'.
I do have one question, and far be it from me to question or even doubt the President of the United States in this new Americanized, Amerocentric and patriotic World Order, but what I ask is this:
Other than being the President, and Pretzel affectionado, who does President George Washington Bush (I assume it stands for Washington. Or "We're No. 1!") think he is?
While not disagreeing that Mr. Hussein and co. are not the kind of people that we can have over for tea and a Rudyard Kipling circle discussion with, and agreeing that they are Bad, Bad Anti-American Affectionados who must be disposed of, mercilessly and expediently.
Has anyone read XPD? It's a good book. At least it's a book.
So, Monsieur Bush wishes to oust Mr Hussein. Fine.
But, taking a break from this conquest of domination of the Irakis, one wonders two things.
Where is the line, and who draws it?
And perhaps, veinly, two more things.
Why is it the Bush, and is his nose really so big that it cannot help but to get stuck elsewhere in the world. (Primarily in Non-US countries that dislike such American activities as Roller-Skating, and Pinball)?
And tertiarily, two more things.
Who is the next threat, and the next?
As if a cacaphony, two more things arise.
When will it stop, when all the "BAD EVIL ANTI-AMERICAN DO NOT BUY ANY TVS FROM THIS COUNTRY" are disposed of and replaced with Pacemaker kiosks and Pretzel Stands? Or, more relevently, American Puppet Governments?
When will Canada be a threat? Jean Poutine could be more Ameri-friendly. When does the Bush oust him?
I'm the only one not hoping for another Miracle on Ice, I suppose. It's too bad all those Vietnam hippies are all old and decrepit.
[ February 15, 2002, 22:32: Message edited by: Ultra Magnus ]
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
No one else has the will. Everybody else stands there shouting 'something must be done!' then they create a commission to resolve to consider the idea of putting a decision before a committee. We, on the other hand, decide something, then act. If that scares other people... too bad.
When will Canada be a threat? Too much of Canada is French for it to ever be a threat.
Snay: Eight years of desert warfare usually creates one of two things:
1.) Grizzled, battle-hardened vets (usu. in movies)
2.) Weary, battle-fatigued mostly conscripted veterans wearing ragtag hand-scrawled T-shirts saying "I just wanna eat!"
And a month of aerial carpet bombardment generally turns 1 into 2 pretty quickly.
"When you're sitting in your tank in the morning fog, and all you can see are the tanks on either side of you, and suddenly, the tank to your right goes KA-BOOM! and explodes, And a few seconds later, the tank to your left goes KA-BOOM! too, pretty quickly you decide 'I'm not staying in this tank.'" -- Actual anecdote from captured Iraqi officer, courtesy U.S. Army
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
I do think that Bush is pushing this "war" more for political gain then anything else.
You're going to have to forgive this next quote, but the website won't allow a direct link without logging in, and I don't want to put anyone through all that. You can click here to go to the website.
quote:1) Why is Saddam more dangerous today than he was 11 years ago when President Bush's father decided to leave him in power?
2) The postwar sanctions and inspections imposed on Saddam did not completely stop him from continuing his doomsday weapons projects, but they did seriously hinder him. Most world leaders advocate escalating the pressure on Saddam to permit U.N. inspectors, who were thrown out in 1998, back into Iraq. Administration officials agree with this but have also announced that this step is doomed to fail so they are already pushing for Step 2, a military invasion. Why would Saddam comply with weapons inspections if the U.S. is already determined to attack him? Shouldn't Step 1 be given more of a chance to succeed?
3) Despite the administration's strenuous efforts, no compelling evidence has been found to tie Saddam into the Sept. 11 attacks or last fall's anthrax terrorism. Why, then, is Iraq being targeted in the war on terrorism?
4) Except for his war on Iran, which was fully supported by the West, and his invasion of Kuwait, which he initially thought was sanctioned by the U.S., Saddam's atrocities have been confined to his own people. Why should we believe that Saddam, after being soundly defeated in the Gulf War, still has expansionist aims?
5) Saddam is, if nothing else, a survivor in the cunning mode of Stalin. Why would he risk the instant destruction of his regime by attacking the U.S. or Israel with nuclear or biochemical weapons? And with the West on high alert to terrorist threats, would he risk passing on these doomsday weapons to networks like al-Qaida?
6) If Saddam is backed into a corner militarily, however, and feels he has nothing to lose, some knowledgeable observers fear that he might launch a final, desperate doomsday weapons attack on Israel. How can this be prevented?
7) Washington hawks claim that the Afghanistan strategy can be applied to Iraq, with the Iraq National Congress playing the role of the Northern Alliance. But the Iraqi opposition strikes many strategists (including some in the Pentagon) as soft from years of U.S.-subsidized exile, and woefully inexperienced on the battlefield. (The INC's one military strike against Saddam, in 1995, ended in a disastrous rout.) Until Bush's axis of evil speech, INC officials were kept at arm's length from the White House, with one senior administration official dismissing them as "half-assed people who can't get the president's ear" and "pissants" who have never "smelled cordite," according to a December article by the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh. Why should we have confidence that the INC can defeat Saddam's military? Would American ground troops have to be put more in harm's way than they were in Afghanistan?
8) The one group within the loose anti-Saddam coalition that does have plenty of battle experience -- mainly from fighting one another -- is the Kurds. But, according to a report in this week's Wall Street Journal, Iraq's Kurdish population -- after years of savage repression and deprivation -- has prospered in recent years, thanks to the U.S.-enforced no-fly zone in the country's north and the billions of dollars of Iraqi oil money that has been funneled to the Kurds under the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program. As a result, they are not eager to plunge back into war and strife. Why should the Kurds take up arms against Saddam again and why should they trust the U.S. this time, when they have been betrayed more than once by Washington?
9) Neighboring countries fear that a war on Iraq would splinter the country and destabilize the region. Turkey fears a Kurdish republic in the north and Saudi Arabia fears a breakaway Shiite state in the south. How can the U.S. assure its allies that a post-Saddam Iraq would not be even more volatile?
10) Is the U.S. prepared to accept a democratic government in Baghdad, even if it is controlled by Shiites and tilts toward anti-American Iran?
11) Given the meddlesome role that the U.S. and its principal ally Britain have historically played in Iraq -- as well as Russian concerns that we are mainly interested in usurping their oil concessions in Iraq -- how can we reassure the world that we are seeking peace and democracy and not simply the country's resources?
12) The U.S. has never demonstrated much concern for the health and human rights of the Iraqi people. Why should they believe another American-led war on their country will bring them anything more than further suffering?"
posted
1.) Intel estimates he's a year away from a nuke. He's got BM's. He's got friends in low places.
2.) 10 years of nothing. *sings* How many years must an inspector wait, before he is fed up to here? The answer, I say, is 'make him go away,' the answer is 'make him go away...'
3.) That's not what I've heard.
4.) Oh, so we should get involved in countries internal struggles (Yugoslavia, Rwanda), UNLESS it's Iraq? Hypocracy.
5.) Because people like Hussein do things if they think they can get away with them. And because of that whole 'martyrs go straight to heaven' thing.
6.) Get him before he can... by doing the very thing you're proposing we NOT do.
7.) No, probably we'll need ground troops. We used them to good effect last time, we can do so again.
8.) Good question, but wouldn't it be better for the Kurds not to need us to enforce the no-fly zone to keep them from being bombed and gassed?
9.) They don't consider Iraq stable NOW. If we can prop up Afghanistan, with its myriad tribes, we can prop up Iraq, with far fewer divergent groups. Worst comes to worst, we stabilize it the same way we stabilized Germany.
10.) We can burn that bridge when we come to it. Who says it will be controlled by any one group? If we leave Iran alone and continue to encourage the pro-west momevent that is in the ascendancy, this may well be a non-problem.
11.) We can invite them to help. But hurry, this offer ends soon. No endless talking in committee.
12.) And their leader HAS?? There isn't much worse than having your leader take billions of dollars to make himself palaces and nuke programs, while you don't get any of the food and medicine you should be getting. It's not our sanctions, it's his distribution.
[ February 16, 2002, 07:55: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
So, what have you heard? And can I ask from where you've heard it from?
quote:4.) Oh, so we should get involved in countries internal struggles (Yugoslavia, Rwanda), UNLESS it's Iraq? Hypocracy.
Idiocy. No one is questioning getting involved in Iraq's internal struggles, Rob. If you'd bothered to read, you'd've noticed that no one is condemning the "no-fly" zones. The question is, 'why should we invade'? Nice attempt at diversion.
quote:8.) Good question, but wouldn't it be better for the Kurds not to need us to enforce the no-fly zone to keep them from being bombed and gassed?
Are you willing to enforce a no-fly zone to keep the Turks out, Rob? The Kurds are perfectly safe right now. Give them their own country, and you might face a preemptive strike from Turkish forces.
quote:9.) They don't consider Iraq stable NOW. If we can prop up Afghanistan, with its myriad tribes, we can prop up Iraq, with far fewer divergent groups. Worst comes to worst, we stabilize it the same way we stabilized Germany.
Yes, but obviously they fear it becoming less stable. Why should they care, since Hussein seems to care only for what happens inside his borders?
quote:10.) We can burn that bridge when we come to it. Who says it will be controlled by any one group? If we leave Iran alone and continue to encourage the pro-west momevent that is in the ascendancy, this may well be a non-problem.
Given that Dubya is calling Iran an "axis of evil" member nation, how do you figure we're doing any encouraging?
Interesting I also wonder where you heard this because the CIA report of Feb. 6 says that Saddam only has tentative ties with Al-Qaida, they are more worried about them getting together as they have differing ideologies., Also this report also says that they are worried that Iraq will get fissionable materials. And there is a long way off from here to a nuclear bomb. So one wonders where you get your intelligence FOT. http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/dci_speech_02062002.html Seems to me that you have more to worry about with your newfound friend Pakistan then with Iraq. Better make sure you prop up this regime better than you propped up Iraq's Hussain, cause when they come back to bite you it will be a lot harder than just invading Kuwait and stopping your oil supply. And while we are talking about this. Why doesn't bush try to cut off Iraq's oil flow, Syria and Jorden are pumping more Iraqi oil than they should which is fueling the research that Iraq is doing, but GW does nothing about this. I think it is because GW friends in the oil industry are making money from the higher grade Syrian oil. I'll admit there is reason to keep an eye on Iraq but there is no reason to invade them right now, that is why the US has no support for the Iraqi invasion from even it's stauncest allies, Canada & UK. Our countries see this as a personal vendeta of GW's and are not supporting it.
[ February 16, 2002, 09:43: Message edited by: Grokca ]
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Iraq close to building nukes - defector By Janine Zacharia
WASHINGTON (June 21) - Iraq has all the basic components necessary for a nuclear bomb, but it is unclear whether it has acquired the fissile material to power it, the former head of Iraq's nuclear weapons program said yesterday.
Describing Iraq's nuclear weapons program as "more or less complete," Dr. Khidhir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 1994, told the American Enterprise Institute that no sanctions or inspectors could thwart the well-concealed Iraqi program.
"The basic bomb components are there in Iraq. The casting is there. One of the casting furnaces was taken out but another one was built... The fuse components are there. Explosives are there. And the initiator for the nuclear reaction is there. So bomb-wise, Iraq is finished. It has the full technology to make a nuclear bomb," Hamza said.
Hamza said he understood that Iraq now has a much better bomb design than the one he was involved in producing, "but the bottleneck remains the supply of fissile material."
If Iraq has managed to purchase such nuclear-ready material, he said, "Iraq has a nuclear weapon by now. If it [has] not, it will have within a short time a nuclear weapon. I expect, another year."
Citing German intelligence estimates, Hamza said Iraq is said to have 1.3 tons of low-enriched uranium and 12 tons of natural uranium, which in their processed form would supply enough material for roughly six bombs.
Now, he said, scientists are focused on adapting the bombs to missiles that can transport them. With continued sanctions making smuggling difficult, Hamza speculated that Iraq is also pursuing a program to develop the technology to produce its own fissile material primarily through what is known as "diffusion."
"Iraq has the material right now, has the technology right now, to go into uranium enrichment if it wants," he said.
[ February 16, 2002, 10:50: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Y'know, every time I see this thread's title, it looks like it says "Bush Decides to Out Saddam Hussein". I have to admit, it would be a lot more interesting if it did...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm just a little bit concerned. Absolutely, Saddam Hussein is a complete despot who should be blown out the airlock of Spaceship Earth.
But that's by our lights. For all we know his people love him, he makes the trains run on time, whatever. The evidence of any involvement with Al-Qaeda is slim or else he'd have been hit at the same time as Afghanistan (and spare me the whole "war on two fronts" thing, Bush isn't a complete idiot but he still isn't THAT smart). We also know that as soon as he can he'll be up to his old Emperor Ming tricks again, threatening the world (or at least his neighbours in general and Israel in particular) with nukes if he ever gets them.
But I don't like the way the USA seems to claim the moral right to be the ones to oust him. You alone have the will, right? Well, back in 1990 this guy had the will to say "that country is actually my country's 20th province, just look at the map if you don't believe me" and if Bush senior hadn't felt the need to prove he was more than just Reagan's buttboy, history would be a lot different. What next? Where will your will take you?
Quite frankly, it strikes me this has less to do with the strength of your will, and more to do with the size of your willy.
posted
Grocka: I'm afraid I have to say you're right on this. We aren't yelling at Syria. We should be, but we aren't.
quote:if Bush senior hadn't felt the need to prove he was more than just Reagan's buttboy, history would be a lot different.
With an Iraqi-controlled Kuwait, and potentially a large chunk or more of Saudi Arabia under the control of a man whose stated intentions were to unite the Arab world by force of arms? With an intact military, chemichal and biological stockpiles, and quite probably nukes? Yes, that probably would be a lot different.
Face it. The EU isn't up to taking decisive military action ANYWHERE, which leaves us. Of course, the most effective opposition to the U.S.'s idea of eliminating Saddam in the FIRST war wasn't from the Middle East as much as it was from Europe.
You said it, he needs to be gone. They're not doing it. We are. You don't like our doing it? Beat us to it. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
[ February 16, 2002, 13:26: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I like this "we," by the way. When you signing up for this holy crusade, library boy? I'm sure you'll be totally safe, hardly any REMFs got killed last time. Apart from all the guys in barracks who got that Scud dropped on them. And the MP who blew his own head off while demonstrating the safety on his Beretta. There's an advert for the shortcomings of inadequate gun control, right there.
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
Saddam made a statement during a parade, that they were not researching nuclear weapons, but something, "that will make people happy". First off, that's a load if I ever heard one. Second all this talk about "happiness" while the parade has tanks, and troops, and he is firing a rifle into the air.
Thoughts anyone?
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
